This Article  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

James C. Rosser, MD

Arch Surg. 1996;131(5):513.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

Dr Frazee and his colleagues deserve our thanks for their continuing effort to remove the voodoo-like mysticism surrounding the employment of the minimally invasive approach for the treatment of acute appendicitis. Resistance to the use of this approach in this country is very puzzling. This is especially true when you consider the high perforation rate in the very young and elderly, the frequent dilemma of diagnosis in the female population, and the larger incision required for the obese patient. Finally, there is a definite advantage to being able to return to aggressive physical activity sooner.

While I applaud their demonstration of the efficient interventional capability of the minimally invasive technique in complicated acute appendicitis, I disagree with their conclusions. The basis of this opposition lies within the confines of the current textbooks of surgery. The morbidity rate associated with perforated appendicitis is 30% to 60%. The wound infection rate is . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Yale University School of Medicine New Haven, Conn

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?